Sorry, dear reader, this is a ‘biggie’, hence the lack of posts recently, but I want to give what passes for my brain a bit of a Spring clean, and, yes, I know it’s Summer but everything takes that much longer at my age. Four years ago, war was declared on us. By “us”, I mean the western democracies. Of course, the strike was directed against the primary representative of that group, the USA. This was a good strategy because it is always sensible to attack your strongest enemy first. However, that was the limit of the enemy’s strategic cleverness, because any such attack should only be carried out with all your available forces. Instead, they launched a pin-prick raid, guaranteed to rouse both the anger and the might of the United States. In double quick time the US launched a huge counter-attack against the enemy’s main base in Afghanistan, capturing it and removing the government that had hitherto aided and abetted the enemy. Then the USA turned its attention to Iraq , and looked to its democratic ‘allies’ for support. Alas, like Hamlet, they could only remark ruefully, “Oh what a falling off was there”. The ‘allies’ melted away like the snows of Spring. Even where one or two governments attempted to help, their peoples were either reluctant or hostile. One day of atrocities in Madrid, and the Spanish were gone!
International and domestic events are coming at us thick and fast. In this post, I want, in the forgettable words of Sir John ‘Minor’ Major, to go ‘back to basics’. I shall do so, slowly, point by point, because writing, ‘like a hanging in the morning’, concentrates the mind wonderfully.
Do we have national interests in the middle-east? I was tempted to ask whether we have any national interests at all, because several writers from the ‘Trot-lot Tendency’ re-act like a Victorian lady catching a glimpse of an uncovered table-leg, if the phrase ‘British national interests’ is used. Of course, the fact is, that were they in power (dread thought!), they, too, would have interests, just as imperative as the one’s we now have, and after a period of shock treatment known as ‘reality’, they would probably be much the same as the ones we have now.
So what are these national interests? First, and obviously, oil! The ‘Trot-lot’ spit this word out as though it were poison and attempt to prove that all we are doing is exploiting the poor Arabs. The fact is that the Arabs have become extremely wealthy (and quite right, too) because far from exploiting them, we pay market rates for the stuff. Still, when did facts ever interfere with the ‘Trot-lot’? The point is that without middle-east oil, this country would rapidly degenerate into chaos. Transport of all the things we depend upon would grind to a halt, heat and power energy would switch off leaving hospitals, old-people’s homes and, indeed, our own homes, in cold darkness. We had a little taster of that condition during the late and un-lamented premiership of Sir Edward Heath. Returning to the ‘Trot-lot’ generally, and the SWP in particular, it should always be borne in mind that they would actually like such conditions to occur. In the resulting poverty, hardship and chaos lies their only chance of achieving the revolution for which they yearn.
What else is a national interest to us? A rather old-fashioned one, not much spoken of these days, the Suez canal . Were Egypt to be taken over by militant Muslims eager to break international law by restricting access to the canal for political reasons, the costs of goods, including oil, would escalate enormously with very big effects on the world economy. I use the words ‘world economy’, and it sounds rather grand but rather nebulous, but it means, in the real world, jobs, savings, homes, essential supplies and so on.
Is Israel a national interest? Now that is a tricky one! Personally, during the ‘60s and ‘70s, when everyone tended to think of that nation as ‘plucky little Israel’ and gave it every sympathy, I tended to the view that oil was more important to us than Jaffa oranges and I was in favour of a policy of neutrality, but with a definite lean to the Arab side. Now, however, the Arabs (or some of them), in their rage and disappointment at their own impotence, have declared war on us as well as Israel. As von Clausewitze pointed out shrewdly, it is always better to fight one’s wars in other people’s countries. Thus it seems to me, to be imperative that we support Israel and let them attract much of the ferocity of the Arab attack. There is an alternative, put forward by the pro-Palestinian fanatics, the SWP, ‘Respect’, and the like, that we should give up on Israel in the hope that without our support, a ‘one-nation’ solution will evolve. This is cant, and murderous cant at that, because anyone with half a brain would know that a ‘one-nation’ solution will result in those Jews not already slaughtered, being driven into the sea. Hamas and their ilk, are not noted for their generous and benevolent attitude to Jewry. Fortunately, the Israeli’s know this better than anyone, and there will never be a one-nation solution. So long as Araby continues to try and impose its will on the Jews, it is in our interests to support the state of Israel.
But if we left Israel to its fate, wouldn’t the Arabs leave us alone? Here we move into the slippery world of speculation as to future events. Also, at this point, it is necessary for me to change my terms. Hitherto, I have referred, rather lazily, to ‘Arabs’ (whilst meaning the militant minority), and whilst it is true that militant Islam arose from the disaffected, middle-class Saudis of the Wahabbi sect (#1, see below), it has now spread to Muslim societies world-wide. Consequently, it is difficult to see how militant Muslims from, say, Indonesia , or Pakistan or Somalia, are going to be mollified just by a settlement in the middle-east. Also, whilst it would be too tedious to repeat them here, there are uncountable quotes from the leaders of militant Islam, proclaiming their hatred of all things Christian and western, and their devotion to the cause of destroying it all. No doubt these proclamations contain considerable hyperbole, but so to did the speeches of Adolph Hitler. It was only at the very last moment that we, meaning the ‘Great British Public’, woke up to the fact that this rather ridiculous foreigner actually meant every word. There is one other factor to consider before we leave Israel to its fate (not that I think they are in imminent danger of being over-run). Such a betrayal would be seen, quite rightly, as a victory for militant Islam. If their threats to carry out a jihad against the west are at the moment, just threats, how tempted and encouraged will they be to continue their onslaught against what they will consider to be a feeble opponent, particularly as they enjoy the considerable advantage of millions of co-religionists living within the borders of their enemies?
Should we get out of Iraq? Or perhaps, should we have gone in, in the first place? To answer that second question first, there were two imperatives that made invasion the right policy. First, the danger of WMD. Now, of course, we have discovered that there was no danger. Not only was the entire world, and all its intelligence agencies, fooled; but even Saddam Hussein, himself, was fooled! (However, I do wonder if the Israelis were ever fooled?) Blair exaggerated the probability of their existence and their efficacy, but I am as certain as an outsider can be that he genuinely believed they were a menace, and that Saddam was the sort of unstable leader likely to pass on the essentials to any terrorist gang willing to use them against the hated west. The second imperative driving our invasion of Iraq was oil. Not Iraqi oil, as the dimwits of the SWC shouted aloud, but Saudi oil. The Saudi royal family is a shaky edifice. Only now are they beginning, perhaps too late, to realise the threat that the Wahabbi sect, which they have allowed to fester within their own borders, poses to their rule. Were Saudi Arabia, and its huge-beyond-belief oil reserves, to fall into the hands of a militant Islamic regime they would almost certainly cut off supplies to the west (even if that meant cutting off their own noses) and supply ot the likes of China, thus squeezing America from two directions. This cannot be allowed to happen. Thus it was, and still is, imperative that the USA has strong bases immediately next to Saudi Arabia. However, it must be admitted that whilst the invasion went better than almost anyone expected (except me!), the consequent rule has been inept. I assumed that the Americans would deploy their usual tactic, based on the very successful one used by the British when conquering India, of picking a strong man to rule and not being too choosey about the methods he used to maintain his rule, on the tried and tested basis of, “He might be a bastard, but he’s our bastard!” Or, I thought they might just let the country split into three separate nations along ethnic and religious divides. Instead, they pushed for the rather idealistic notion of imposing democracy on a society with no experience of it. Well, we are, where we are, and an answer is required to the question of whether or not we should get out. I think that we should remain, and remain in force, for at least another 2 – 3 years, in order to give the putative Iraqi leadership time to build up their security services. We should be extremely pro-active in ‘search and destroy’ operations against the Iraqi terrorist gangs, but if in that time-scale nothing has improved, we should get out, consider what went wrong and devise a new strategy.
What should be our new strategy? I think, irrespective of how the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq turn out (the first looks partially hopeful, the second rather more hopeless), we should recognise that whilst it is easy to invade and throw out a regime, it is very difficult and counter-productive to hold down a country. Thus, we should opt out of the so-called ‘international law’ that holds that a nation’s frontiers are inviolate. We already possess the ‘smart’ weaponry that can be aimed with pin-point accuracy, and we should take a leaf from the Israeli tactic of retaliating against the leadership of our enemies, and apply it at the strategic level of taking out regimes that threaten us, without undue hurt to civilians, and without attempting to remain in situ. The knowledge that the USA/UK could, and would, carry out such operations, would concentrate minds enormously. Similarly, we possess the specialised forces needed to carry out raids into countries whose land is being used for terrorist training, and they should be deployed; again, ignoring ‘international law’. I believe this targeted approach would yield the sort of beneficial results that the Israeli’s have enjoyed since they began killing terrorist leaders.
But what about grand strategy? I define ‘strategy’ as the decisions taken at the highest level of military leadership as to the deployment of a nation’s military resources. Grand strategy I define as the decisions taken at the highest level of political leadership as to the deployment of all national resources, eg, political, diplomatic, financial, industrial and so on. So, at the level of grand strategy it is essential that our government takes immediate and urgent steps to reduce our dependency on oil. Almost exactly 100 years ago, Winston Churchill took a huge decision to switch from coal to oil as the fuel for the latest Dreadnought battleships. All the wise-acres of his day howled their outrage and incomprehension that an island possessed of zillions of tons of coal should switch to foreign owned oil. Time proved what a brave and wise decision it was! Now is the time for our leadership to lead, and persuade the British public that now is the time for us to switch to nuclear fuel, and to aid industry in searching for other forms of energy. If we can wean ourselves off the elixir of oil, even at some cost, it will reduce our dependence on the middle-east. The fact that the price of oil has hit new highs just makes it that much easier. Also, we must take active steps to increase the rate at which the Islamic world is secularised. Globalised commerce is the quickest and best method for that process to be accelerated. Muslims share the same desires and needs as the rest of us. They want all those things which make life easier and more comfortable. Let us make sure they get them, and with them, the message that a secular polity is not necessarily a threat to their religion. (It is, of course, but by then it will be too late, as we have discovered in the west – hence my sympathy with those Muslims who detest aspects of western life.)
And geo-politics? Anyone can see that, to re-use a rather tired metaphor, the geo-political, tectonic plates are shifting rather rapidly. New and strong powers are growing in the far east, of which China is the most worrying. No-one can foretell how the Chinese will flex their power in the next 50 years, or even if they will remain united enough to flex the power they have. “Speak quietly but carry a big stick” remains good advice, and so we should assume the worst. In which case, the policy that proved successful in facing the menace of Soviet power, should be stuck to, that is, a close and friendly alliance with the USA. Again, in the face of the constant and vicious anti-Americanism relentlessly poured into our eyes and ears by the so-called British intelligentsia (a misnomer, if ever there was one!), it requires leadership of the highest sort to counter this infantile and dangerous nonsense which stands as our own version of la trahison des clercs!
Well, I’m glad to have got that off my chest, and, to mix the medical metaphor, my brain now feels much tidier. In an uncertain world, one can only grope forward slowly, but one hopes, intelligently.
#1: I am grateful to Abid Hussain, who wrote an interesting letter to The Business (Britain’s best newspaper, by far!) pointing out that it was incorrect for commentators to point at Wahabbism as a source of Muslim terrorism. In fact, the Wahabbi sect had been fiercely attacked by bin Laden and his cohorts, and one should look at the Deobandee sect as the source of their hatred due in part to their mis-interpretation of the true tenets of Islam. I have e-mailed him in the hope that he might contribute to this discussion.
PS: Abid Hussain has kindly referred me to the following site which blows away the Wahhabi myth, including my disgraceful mis-spelling of the name! He has also allowed me to print his e-mail to me which I think readers will find useful.
This is a copy of the e-mail from Abid Hussain:
Hi David
Hope you are well.
Many thanks for taking time out to email me. I'm delighted that the Business newspaper printed my letter, I've always read the paper to help me manage my financial portfolio, never did I think I would write to them on the topic of Islamic theology but such are the times we live in today.
I've read your blog with interest, there are lots of interesting and
fascinating points you make.
As a muslim who was born in the UK I feel I have an excellent balance
between my religion and my day to day life as a British citizen.
I struggled less to find my British identity which includes a passion for
football, fish and chips and Cadburys chocolate than I had initially to find my Islamic identity.
The purpose of my letter was to rebalance the arguments around the whole notion of wahhabi fuelled hatred, wars and extremism.
As a muslim who searched for his identity in the UK I have found it to be
the one school of thought that does not require blind allegiance to specific imams or scholars. We accept and acknowledge that as humans we have flaws as do our scholars. If a scholar issues a ruling we do not accept it based on his fame or influence but on the strength of his research and evidence.
The Islamic evidence rejects suicide bombing, rejects the killing of
innocent people and rejects what we have so tragically witnessed in London over the last few weeks.
The biggest challenge that has faced Islam in recent years has not been
western policy, it has not been Israel and it has not been the influence
achieved due to large reserves of oil. These are all great challenges but
the main problem has been the emergence of a number of schisms within the religion itself. The emergence of new schools of thought and intepretation that are moving away from the fundamentals of the faith and resulting in new brands of Islam from the liberal left to the extremist right both equally dangerous.
Much has been made of the emergence of the Saudi intepretation of Islam, this was not a radical response to sinister western policy it was a response and a rise against the spread of new innovations in the religion from within such as idol worship and veneration of saints in Islamic society that were not part of the teachings outlined in the Quran or the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed pbuh.
The Islamic message brought by Abdul Wahhab who lead the campaign that ultimately resulted in the modern day Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was no new fangled concept, it merely returned to the foundations of the religion, the call to worship of one god and to reject the intermediaries that had been set up during his time.
The Taleban from a religious perspective were much more influenced by Sub contintental interpretations of Islam than a Saudi interpretation and I say this as a muslim of Pakistani descent.
Did Saudi money flow into Afghanistan, most probably yes but so did American and British Arms. What certainly did not flow into the Taleban regime was a Saudi interpretation of religion.
How we solve the increasingly fractured relationship between the Islamic world and the west is far more complicated, it requires the addressing of the Palestinian issue, it requires better handling of a post Saddam Iraq but most of all it needs better understanding of the faith and a response based on this as oppossed to a haphazard interventionist policy that gave us Saddam, Osama and many others in the first place.
Happy to contribute to the debate further, but just my initial thoughts on
your blog that raised soo many interesting and conversation stimulating
points.
One bit that was not included in my letter was a link to the following site
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/index.htm
This site will give readers an alternative perspective which they are open to agree with or differ on.
All the best
Abid
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 24 July 2005 at 21:50